/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
|> <step name="A">
|> <step name="inside">...</step>
|> </step>
|> <step name="B">
|> <step name="inside">...</step>
|> </step>
|>
|> is allowed by the current spec, not with your change, IMHO
|
| Ok, I was misinterpreting the wording:
|
|> > The scope of the names of the steps themselves is determined by the
|> > environment of each step. In general, the name of a step, the names of
|> > its sibling steps, the names of any steps that it contains directly,
|> > the names of its ancestors, and the names of its ancestor's siblings
|> > are all in the same scope.
|
| My interpretation was: the first inside is in the same scope as A, the
| second is in the same scope as B, and A and B are in the same scope,
| so by transitivity the two insides are in the same scope. I suggest
| changing "in the same scope" to "in a common scope".
That seems fine to me. Fixed.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As we grow older we grow both more
http://nwalsh.com/ | foolish and wiser at the same time.--La
| Rochefoucauld